possessed, I'd say the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying is more appropriate; "Ve are too zoon oldt und too late schmart..." :o
possessed, I'd say the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying is more appropriate; "Ve are too zoon oldt und too late schmart..." :o
a long way while I was out riding my mare - Gracie is the grandneice of Secretariat on her sire's side. :D
2 points:
1. In Panama, we used RC SF who were civilian cops - called em RC Cops - and teamed them with AC SF teams for 30 days. A new RC Cop team would come in for 30 days but the AC SF team would remain. With each RC Cop from a different police department the AC SF would have at least 4 different police SOPs to observe. By the end of the second iteration the AC SF were damned good police/police trainers - and FID is a 7th SFG specialty. Weakness was that the RC Cops were were limited to RC SF and MPs were not included.
2. John Nagl was here in OK last week at our Dilemmas of Global Security Symposium. While we didn't get into police training by US military his BN - 1/34 Armor - is charged with training trainers for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Key is that these guys are not SF. Point is that good soldiers can adapt and are capable of designing and executing training programs. Indeed, the first Panama police training course - the 20 hour course - was designed by then Major Richard Downie, an infantryman and FAO. Rich later worked with the Italian Carabinieri in former Yugoslavia before he took over the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation as its first Commandant. Had a bunch of police in his classes, Now, as civilian Director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, he educates civilians, soldiers, NGO types, etc, including civilian cops from the Latin American and Caribbean region.
All in all, the Long War is going to require a remarkable degree of adaptability on the part of soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and civilians alike and we should think out of the box enough to be willing to seriously consider using state police who have a constabulary/gendarmerie type role. there really is enough work for everyone who wants it.:cool:
Cheers
JohnT
Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Georgia State Police Units(except for the GBI Investigations unit) do not do much of what is called police work....they deal mostly with traffic, nothing wrong with that, it just isn't what you would want. Tom Odom posted an interesting experience with them on another thread. You need good street cops and detectives nothing fancy.
Three times I've worked up a post along these lines, but I know that it would only piss off the entirety of law enforcement and military so I censor myself. Suffice it to say the military should do it's job and not try and get into civilian law enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Once again, that leaves us with the problem of how to get good police training for national police forces without (1) denuding active departments, (2) outsourcing to the private sector, and (3) achieving consistency of quality and SOPs among the police trainers.Each local department has its own rules and ways of doing business.
We could, of course, let the RCMP, Carabinieri, French Gendarmerie, or Chilean Carabineros take on the job. But what if we have to do it? who do we do it with and how best to make them (whoever They are) part of the mission under the same command?
Cheers
JohnT
PS the police advisor in el Salvador was an MP Major:)
First, I think there are a number of CID agents who would take issue with that comment. Second, MPs do the equivelant of civilian law enforcement for the military (or at least they used to). I have conducted investigations and apprehended military and civilian alike. The only difference was I got to go to court with the civilans and (on occasion) courtsmartial with the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
First you changed the scope from military police to much more specialized CID agents... A long walk from the beat cop still. Second because you or I or anybody else has done it does not make it right or even legal. I stand by my comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
I'll grant you that, but it shows that the capability is there. Where do you think most of those CID agents started? Most were recruited from MPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Well I am sure it was legal as we were standing in front of a federal judge. If it wasn't than I think he would have thrown us out on our butt. I think many people misunderstand what MPs are legally capable of, particularly on a military instillation where there is concurrent federal jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
But don't stop arguing with me just cause I disagree. My idea is just one method. If you have a better solution to civil stabilization concurrent with military operations I am always interested in other thoughts.
The capability is not there. Law enforcement is much more than force, and and more importantly MP's are trained to deal with a homogeneous population and the civilian world is a heterogeneous population.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
MP's have limited skills in civilian law enforcement, and CID agents are non-scalable. Civilian law enforcement is done by civilians. If the problem is not enough police on foreign soil then fix that problem. Don't just expand the mission or tactical envelope.
Whether you were standing in front of a judge or not doesn't necessarily make it legal. The law as a concrete set of rules is a legal fiction. As an example since the inception of the Patriot Act (and associated prosecutions) it has been continuously disassembled in the court system. This is an example of the issues between military and civilian law enforcement. The current para-militarization of the civilian law enforcement eloquently exposes many of the problems (including 1 in 100 people in America are incarcerated or under court mandated supervision).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
A host of court cases from Miranda to Terry to Oliphant and on and on have shown that police actions within policy are not necessarily legal.
As to solving the problem of not enough police on foreign soil. Law enforcement can only be effective when it is seen to be functioning as part of a legitimate government entity.
You said a lot there. In Alabama and a lot of other states if you held the LE designation in an MP unit you can become a POST certified police officer by attending a 2 week lateral transfer school because the MP academy is almost identical to a regular civilian police academy in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Slap you've walked in both set's of shoes. Do you think the population/issues/enforcement mechanisms are that similar that you'd be able to just use any MP as a civilian law enforcement agent? Then again can you ramp up LE designated MP's that fast (didn't even know they differentiated). The next issue that comes up is that our law enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly western civilization centric. So now you're talking about training and enculturation. Moving from hilltop to dark town could ruin the best cop what about Jacksonville to Baghdad?Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Guess it depends on the perspective. Given a unit in a combat environment, yes, true. Given a typical state side or overseas post or base with more dependents than troops and a slew of Civilian employees, not so much. Post MPs get as many domestics as do city cops -- maybe more...Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
They get the full gamut of civilian law enforcement issues and the population they serve is not nearly as homogeneous as many think. Neither are the crimes. I've seen MPs and / or the CID deal with everything from auto theft to rape to embezzlement to homicide, suicide and incest -- and most things in between and involving civilian employees of contractors, males, females and kids, troops, visitors on post, traveling salesmen and Pizza delivery drivers.
Most Posts and Bases are a fairly accurate reflection of an American city and most crimes are handled by delivery to the local criminal courts or to a Federal Magistrate -- wherein the MPs get to testify just as do my two sons who are city cops today (and they have the same problems with the Attorneys -- both sides).Limited with respect to young initial entry MPs, not true with respect to those who've been around a few years. The CID folks are surprisingly well rounded and tend to work more white collar and general crim stuff than many would think.Quote:
MP's have limited skills in civilian law enforcement, and CID agents are non-scalable...
Agreed, the issue is how you get that expansion going, not applying US MPs to it.Quote:
...Civilian law enforcement is done by civilians. If the problem is not enough police on foreign soil then fix that problem. Don't just expand the mission or tactical envelope.
Agree also with that -- but again, it doesn't answer the problem of training a host nation's police and / or para military police to do their jobs which is the issue on the thread. We do not need para military police here and IMO, the SWAT-ization is vastly overdone; other nations may not be that fortunate.Quote:
Whether you were standing in front of a judge or not doesn't necessarily make it legal. The law as a concrete set of rules is a legal fiction. As an example since the inception of the Patriot Act (and associated prosecutions) it has been continuously disassembled in the court system. This is an example of the issues between military and civilian law enforcement. The current para-militarization of the civilian law enforcement eloquently exposes many of the problems (including 1 in 100 people in America are incarcerated or under court mandated supervision).
Also true -- again, the problem is how you get there...Quote:
A host of court cases from Miranda to Terry to Oliphant and on and on have shown that police actions within policy are not necessarily legal.
As to solving the problem of not enough police on foreign soil. Law enforcement can only be effective when it is seen to be functioning as part of a legitimate government entity.
Ken, I have a post I'm holding in abeyance as it strikes across this thread and also the thread from Rob Thorton. I'm sitting on it out of respect to the rest of you it is darn near journal length but not very well thought out yet. The key piece though is that you can't possibly enact MP's as law enforcement on a foreign land as they won't have proper culture, tools, or understanding (maybe my reasons might be off but I think the issues are valid). The second thrust is that government must be legitimate to enforce laws with any hope of the actions not being corrupted. Since we're talking about COIN (my thoughts anyways) the legitimacy of the government is already in doubt by the populace. What we think is legitimate has little to do with the problem.
As to solving it the problem is a "chicken and the egg" conundrum. You need law enforcement to be a legitimate government and you must be a legitimate government to have lawful enforcement.
Personally I'm highly invested in the concept of separation of powers (<- Illuminating my own bias in a fit of honesty).
I'm thinking about it further and I think the keys are found in the repair and resumption of police powers by agencies after horrific civil disturbances during the civil rights movement. In that you had law enforcement (inequitable to be sure) and the legitimacy of that was torn down by insurgents (civil rights movement demonstrators), and the actual structures of government had to change and adapt to the new paradigm.
How did law enforcement succeed in those situations? It wasn't just a "Mongolian horde effect" of throwing bodies at the problem. The structures were in place but had to be repaired and franchised (accepted) by the people.
I'll have to think about it some more.
with only the caveat that in a pure occupation, you have to use them for that; other than that for all the reasons you cite and more it has to be an absolute no-no.Quote:
"The key piece though is that you can't possibly enact MP's as law enforcement on a foreign land as they won't have proper culture, tools, or understanding (maybe my reasons might be off but I think the issues are valid).
The thread was started with the question of using US MPs for law enforcement on foreign soil -- maybe I missed something but unless it is a pure occupation (which Iraq was not, even if the US Government foolishly said it was no matter how briefly) it is a totally bad idea and bound to be illegal unless there is, as Tom Said, a SOFA which defines the (generally very narrow) scope wherein MPs may operate. I sorta thought the consensus was that it shouldn't be done and that John capped that with the references and his comment on the issue.
The thread morphed -- my fault -- into using select Guard and Reserve MP units specifically to train host nation paramilitary elements. I specifically used Guard and Reserve because those units are full of working Cops. I also said that the elements they trained should be the paramilitary internal security folks -- NOT the civil cops, those should devolve to US Aid and contractors -- as is being done now by MPRI and DynCorp (LINK), both of whom want civilian cops with full Academy training and generally five or more years street or road experience and fully certified (to include extra certifications like fire arms instructor etc.) and they generally exclude MP service from consideration.
I also agree that the government concerned must be legitimate but, as you said, if we're talking COIN that may (or may not) be a problem.
Looking forward to your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Hi Sam, I don't know when the MP's started the separate MOS idea, they didn't do that when I was in. Now days to transfer you have to be a 31B or 31E or something like that. From my understanding there is a correctional type MOS and a Physical Security type MOS type that would not be allowed to transfer without going to the full academy.
I have worked with and know a few transfers from the MP's and they worked out great.....but just like every rookie they had to spend a year on the street with a training officer before they were turned loose and as you know that year is where you really learn how to be a cop.
Completely agree about the cultural and language differences, but that is true regardless of your MOS...you have to understand the people. And what is the Law and how are you going to explain it to the target population is the critical foundation. We talk about this on Rob Thornton's similar thread.
I am looking forward to your post to, just let fly.
I think it would be beneficial if I explain the situations the question was based on.
1. US military in a legally constituted foreign country (COIN or non-COIN.
a. Control of use of any force = SOFA
b. FID Training per agreement between nations
2. US military in interdiction/invasion to restore legally constituted foreign country
a. Control of use of any force = SOFA
b. FID Training per agreement between nations
3. US military in invasion to effect regime change
a. MPs used to provide enforcement of civil order as apposed to using the Infantry.
b. FID Police Training conducted by MPs until the situation is stable enough to allow NGO/IGO support.
4. US military in invasion into ungoverned territory.
a. MPs used to provide enforcement of civil order as apposed to using the Infantry.
b. FID Police Training conducted by MPs until the situation is stable enough to allow NGO/IGO support.
The bottom line is that MPs are trained for LE and can be trained to deal with the cultural differences. The option is having the Infantry "be creative" and throw civilians into reservoirs for curfew violations or Armor guys crushing civilians car with an M1 for looting wood. It is a matter of damage control. If it is going to happen which force is capable of causing the minimum damage – who is trained for this mission.
nearly always SF in the FID role. The problem comes when there are not enough SF or the SF do not have the specialized skills required - or both. In that case, there was a concept from the 60s and 70s called the SAF - later modified to a FID Augmentation Force (FIDAF) that provides an appropriate organizational structure. Essentially, it would integrated SF and MPs for LE training sort of a modification of what was done by MILGP El Sal and the RC Cops in Panama. How this would be put together requires adapability and imagination.
Cheers
JohnT
Absolutely agree. SF should do this mission with augmentation when they feel they need it. Unfortunately, that is not the current reality. If we are going to have to cut corners, I think I would prefer to do it with the forces best suited for the mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
The only thing I would add is a couple of SF to the MP training team, if possible. That way the SF would be a training multiplier to paraphrase the common usage.
Just one example, and it's Vietnam era information, but an interesting article none the less:
http://www.mrfa2.org/MP.htm